Global Privacy Rankings Released

djmurdoch writes to alert us to the release of Privacy International's privacy ranking of 37 nations. This came out of PI and EPIC's annual Privacy and Human Rights global study, which this year runs to 1,200 pages. From a Globe and Mail article on the rankings: "Germany and Canada are the best defenders of privacy, and Malaysia and China the worst, an international rights group said in a report released Wednesday. Britain was rated as an endemic surveillance society, at No. 33, just above Russia and Singapore... The United States did only slightly better, at No. 30, ranked between Israel and Thailand, with few safeguards and widespread surveillance." PI's study coincided with a report from Britain's information commissioner warning that the UK could "sleep-walk into a surveillance society". The nation now has one CCTV camera for every 14 people.

Comments

Re:Wot?

[GigsVT]

If that's the case, why are only 5-10% Libertarian?

You'd think people would get the idea and stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, but that hasn't happened. The only logical conclusion is that people want fascism. People no longer really want freedom. Freedom brings too many responsibilities.

Re:Wot?

[geoffspear]

People no longer really want freedom.

Sure they do. They're just deluded enough to think that's what they're getting. When people accept that the government is spying on them to help keep them free, they don't go along because they want to be spied on. They do it because they're too dumb to see past the doubletalk.

Re:Something fishy in Rankings.

[Lemmy Caution]

Or they could be completely orthogonal. The US (domestically) isn't terribly bad on human rights, but is bad on privacy. Germany is pretty good at both.

Human rights are usually a matter of how the executive functions, particularly in law enforcement. Privacy has more to do with legislation and the private sector: privacy regulations restrict what information about you public and private institutions (insurers, credit agencies, etc.) can distribute, and how it is distributed. It also is a question of how those institutions protect your data, such as your credit card and banking information.

All pretty much completely unrelated to questions of freedom of speech (unless you think there is a free-speech aspect to restricting whether a business can give away your private information.)

Re:The Canadians are at the top?

[timeOday]

Come 2008, Bush will be out of office and the U.S. will become a utopia just like it was when Clinton was President.

I originally voted against Clinton. Yet in retrospect, I've realized America was better off during his term than any other in my lifetime. Though not utopia, we had peace, prosperity, and falling crime, moreso then than either before or after. It's a matter of record. Now, I am not one to blame/credit the President for everything that happens during his term, but results have to count for something.

Congress writes the laws. Congress passes the laws. The President just gets a photo-op when he signs them. If we want change in the U.S. we must focus on Congress.

I think are describing the Constitution, rather than our current government. Have you noticed that President Bush has vetoed virtually nothing during his Presidency? It's not because he's afraid to use it, it's because our federal govt. has been under one-party rule for the last 6 years. The President is literally doing what he wants and getting it legalized afterwards. You think individual representatives can step out of line without consequences? The Democrats are spineless because they know they don't have the votes to make it stick. Even McCain, whom I respected, has been brought to heel.

For the first time, I am not voting the issues on Tuesday. I'm voting for a return to government gridlock, because we are living the consequences of too much concentration of power, and hundreds of billions of dollars are being wasted, and tens of thousands of people (including thousands of Americans) are dying.